One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: House on Haunted Hill (1959)

This classic (but low-budget) William Castle horror film introduces viewers to a haunted house (actually the Ennis Brown House in Los Angeles); a supposedly "authentic" locale where seven people have already died gruesome deaths.

As the film opens, wealthy and oft-married business Frederick Loren (Vincent Price) sets up the movie's premise in his narration. Specifically, he and his (fourth) wife, Annabelle (gorgeous Carol Ohmart) throw a "ghost" party at the haunted house. They invite five guests (who arrive at the house in a caravan of "funeral cars") and offer them $10,000 a piece if they can survive twelve hours locked inside the house. The doors and windows are locked and barred. The party favors inside the house? Loaded pistols ensconced in tiny black coffins.

The five guests include a cold-fish psychiatrist working on a theory about hysteria and fear, Dr. David Trent (Alan Marshal); Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig), a modest working-girl who needs the money to support her family; Ruth Bridgers (Julie Mitchum), a bitchy gossip columnist with a bad gambling habit; dashing test pilot Lance Schroeder (Richard Long); and the twitchy Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook), who has already survived one harrowing night in the house on haunted hill and claims his brother was murdered there. Furthermore, he claims that there are two severed heads laying about on the premises. He's either stark raving bonkers or the only person who knows what's coming.

"There's a been a murder in almost every room in this house," warns Pritchard as viewers are escorted on a tour of the premises. Undoubtedly the creepiest room is the vast wine cellar. There, underneath a trap door, is a vat of boiling acid. Note to visitors: avoid it all costs. The acid destroys everything with hair and flesh and is thus the perfect medium for a murder.

House on Haunted Hill's premise is brilliantly and cleverly set-up by both director Castle and writer Robb White. And the film itself is a study in economy: just a handful of interesting and diverse characters in a mostly empty house (I've used that one myself...). But what makes House on Haunted Hill so much fun is the central conceit: that -- when frightened -- people are unsure of what they've seen and can be manipulated into believing and doing things that seem against their character. In our society today - a fear-based society if ever there was one - this psychological aspect of the film holds up remarkably well.

The 1950s represented a time in American society wherein psychology was growing especially popular and broadly acknowledged; especially in the middle class. As a rational movement, psychology was "invading" the culture at all turns and this is especially true of the horror films of the day. The Bad Seed (1954) asked viewers to contemplate psychology's nature vs. nurture argument. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) assessed psychology and determined that it could be manipulated to explain away uncomfortable truths (like alien invaders or ideological witch hunts). And then there was House on Haunted Hill, examining the fear response, and the manipulation of fear. You'll see, by the way, if you watch them, that all three films feature a psychiatrist/psychologist and usually in a villainous capacity; perhaps expressing the population's distrust of "shrinks." Don't tell Kathryn.

The game of fear inHouse on Haunted Hill is being waged against the background of a bad marriage. Namely that of Frederick and Annabelle Loren. Annabelle claims to fear for her life since Frederick's last two wives died of heart attacks (at age 28), and Frederick is certain Annabelle has already attempted to kill him once (a poisoning). The ghosts and the guests are just chess pieces to be moved around in this couple's battle for supremacy, domination and survival. Given this depiction of marriage as a competition, the film offers some exceptionally fine (if cruel) marital banter. My favorite is Annabelle's comment to Frederick that "Darling, the only ghoul in this house is you."That comment also ties into the film's flirtation with the supernatural. Pritchard is convinced ghosts exist ("only the ghosts in this house are happy we're here," he states), but the evidence of the supernatural in House on Haunted Hill is ambiguous to say the least. Chandeliers shake and fall; blood drips from a ceiling (and always on the gossip columnist); and a severed head or two shows up to terrorize Nora-- but we never actually see a ghost. I rather like this approach, especially since the film's "game of murder" focuses on human nature rather than the paranormal. What we are seeing in the house is a psychological game, and the only ghosts are the ones generated by fear. And the skinny one on a pulley...

That stated, the film's one supreme (and still totally efficient) jolt involves a bit of a cheat. Alone in a small-room off the wine cellar, Nora backs into a frightening white-haired lady who appears in the frame suddenly. She not only appears monstrous (with a wild mane of white hair and dead eyes...), she sort of levitates/glides across the wine cellar floor. This seems to me to indicate that she is of supernatural origin, but Vincent Price's character, Loren, explains her away as being a caretaker of the house. Then how does she glide like that? Well, her name is Mrs. Slydes (slides...).

Anyway...

Despite that bit of cheating, House on Haunted Hill remains a terrific and economical horror classic from a bygone age. Vincent Price is front-and-center here just the way you want to remember him: charismatic, eloquent, charming, arrogant, clever, larger-than-life and with a mean-streak indicative of the future Dr. Phibes. And despite some creaky effects, the film is still suspenseful enough to keep you engaged with the characters and their situation all the way through the denouement.

There was a terrible remake of the film in 1999, one that discarded the film's psychological veneer and sense of ambiguity about the supernatural, so it's still this House that's worth seeing. Even fifty years later. True, we can no longer see this effort in the glory of William Castle's Emergo (a technique which levitated a skeleton through theater auditoriums...), but with the story's focus on the human psychology, there are quite enough skeletons in the closet (and haunted house) on hand.

1 comment:

I suppose one could make the argument that the sequence with the caretaker is from Nora's subjective viewpoint. Mrs. Slydes doesn't actually glide, but Nora's so freaked out at that point that she's putting added weirdness where there isn't any.

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)